Most of the usual suspects. Most prominent among those who reject the Medicaid expansion are those in the Deep South/Tidewater. By contrast, much of Yankeedom, the Midlands, and the Left Coast have embraced it openly, as expected.

Interestingly, much of Greater Appalachia has embraced the Medicaid expansion as well. This highlights a very important aspect of the healthcare discussion, as with socialist ideals in general: the importance of homogeneity.

A few recent articles have correctly noted that the Deep South’s opposition to Obamacare stems from simmering racism. More accurately (though not by much), I’d say it stems from clannish peoples not wanting share the spoils of the commonweal with those outside the “tribe”:

Before he was disgraced into resigning his presidency over the Watergate burglary scandal, Richard Nixon had successfully engineered an even more odious plot known as his Southern Strategy. The trick was devilishly simple: Appeal to the persistent racist inclination of Southern whites by abandoning the Republican Party’s historic association with civil rights and demonizing the black victims of the South’s history of segregation.

That same divisive strategy is at work in the Republican rejection of the Affordable Care Act. GOP governors are largely in control of the 26 states, including all but Arkansas in the South, that have refused to implement the act’s provision for an expansion of Medicaid to cover the millions of American working poor who earn too much to qualify for the program now. A New York Times analysis of census data concludes that as a result of the Republican governors’ resistance, “A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help. …”

What the report makes clear is that the current Republican obsession with attacking programs that benefit Americans in need, ranging from food stamps to Obamacare, isn’t about some philosophical commitment to small government, still less worries about incentive effects and implicit marginal tax rates. It’s about anxiety over a changing America — the multiracial, multicultural society we’re becoming — and anger that Democrats are taking Their Money and giving it to Those People. In other words, it’s still race after all these years.

Of course, in Krugman’s case, he’s unsurprisingly blind to the deleterious effects the demographic change he extols will have, but he is spot on about conservative White opposition to social welfare programs.

i said: “…lady a is ok with contributing to the commonweal, but lady b (and her man, bubba) are not (even though, at the same time, they might be VERY ok with TAKING from the common pot!).”

for the record, i think this is one of the fundamental problems with “lady b”/clannish societies, and that is that, while they generally do not want to contribute to the common pool (to varying degrees), they are VERY happy to TAKE from the common pool as much as possible to the benefit of themselves and their extended family members.

The clannish elements of British American society, the descendants of the Cavaliers and the Ulster Scots, are indifferent to contributing a common pot, and they are certainly uncomfortable about anything they contribute to the common pot going to non-kin, especially people who aren’t even of the same race.

The denizens of the Deep South/Tidewater live in states with large Black minorities. Deep Southern Whites correctly see their funds being redistributed from themselves to non-Whites, particularly Blacks. Hence, they oppose it.

Which brings me to Greater Appalachia. The Appalachian states that accept the Medicaid expansion are largely homogeneously Scotch-Irish. Further still, they would certainly be on the receiving end of tax revenue from Obamacare. Hence, they are more receptive to the Medicaid expansion, perhaps correctly reasoning that they stand to gain from its implementation (at least within-state).

Interestingly, the Far West is a bit topsy-turvy from what we’d expect. The northern more homogenous Far Western states oppose the Medicaid expansion, while the ones that contain “El Norte” embrace it. In the former case, I suspect that the rugged individualism of the Far Westerners overrides their recognition that they’d (largely) stand to gain from Obamacare. However, Montana did set up its own single-payer universal health care system ahead of Obamacare. This may exemplify the sentiment in somewhat clannish peoples: commonweal, but only for those in the tribe.

On that note, to be fair to the progenitors of the nations of the Old North, both the descendants of the Puritans and the descendants of the Quakers are likely minorities in their respective nations – the latter certainly so (since they were since the beginning). I suspect that the purer Yankee and Quaker elements would, if left to their own devices, set up their own – internal – universal health care system, much as Vermont has. They favor the commonweal – within group. Both the Puritans and the Quakers were “in-betweeners”, and may not have favored complete universalism.

In either case, it is clear that the American nations persists, and perhaps, as John Derbyshire recently put it, “The War Between the States goes on,” where one battlefield (out of many) is healthcare.

This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well. Hailing from Yankee-dom, I never saw anything wrong with government welfare programs, but as the nation becomes increasingly diverse, I don’t why I should pay an ever rising share of taxes to people who do not share my culture, my ethics, my religion, or in some cases, even my language. It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

It’s one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a “community” that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

Indeed.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they're right as well. Hailing from Yankee-dom, I never saw anything wrong with government welfare programs, but as the nation becomes increasingly diverse, I don't why I should pay an ever rising share of taxes to people who do not share my culture, my ethics, my religion, or in some cases, even my language. It's one thing to give charity to others, but to be lumped into a "community" that exists of a constant one-way relationship of responsibility and resources seems absurd.

This is why some libertarians cynically support open borders: more diversity means less support for welfare. I think they’re right as well.

The concise explanation you left on my side notes that the implementation of socialized health care (which, while it sounds tripe and cliche, essentially is what Obamacare becomes if companies begin dumping their employees onto the exchanges en masse) is both dysgenically redistributive and also hasn’t been much of an issue in other countries that have done it. This strikes me as simultaneously accurate and not especially relevant because of vastly demographic profiles. Perhaps ironically, half a century ago the composition of the country would’ve made implementation less rancorous than it is today but due to the demographic changes pushed by those supporting its implementation, said implementation has faced widespread resistance.

Let's be honest. Why did we end up with Obamacare? Would a proper healthcare system, one that was truly universal and indeed single payer have even have been an option politically? Would the people who now oppose Obamacare have been happy with that?

Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

The latter is the practical execution of something which was made in the spirit of the former. Again, why did we end up with the flawed Obamacare system?

Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

See this is where I part company with right-wingers. First of all, how dysgenic is health care, really? Do you think access to healthcare – which would include family planning services – really be all that dysgenic? And even if it were, is allowing the poor and sick to suffer and die the answer? Get serious.

Many are against Obamacare because they believe it provides worse outcomes for the poor and middle class.

Rising prices and premiums. Lower quality care. Less innovation.

It is not such a simple a matter that if you don't support healthcare, you don't care about the poor. In fact, it may be the opposite.

Let’s be honest. Why did we end up with Obamacare? Would a proper healthcare system, one that was truly universal and indeed single payer have even have been an option politically? Would the people who now oppose Obamacare have been happy with that?

Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

@The fourth doorman of the apocalypse:

The word racism has very little meaning these days.

I wouldn’t say that.

Obamacare is not, one little bit, about providing health care for the poor and unfortunate. It is about rewarding big pharma and insurance companies with money taken from the middle class as taxes.

The latter is the practical execution of something which was made in the spirit of the former. Again, why did we end up with the flawed Obamacare system?

Even if it were about providing health care for the poor, the dysgenic effects of that should be opposed.

See this is where I part company with right-wingers. First of all, how dysgenic is health care, really? Do you think access to healthcare – which would include family planning services – really be all that dysgenic? And even if it were, is allowing the poor and sick to suffer and die the answer? Get serious.

[…] course, that may take a long time to happen – if it happens at all. As we saw in my previous post on the matter, the ethnonational divisions that exist in the U.S. complicate such an expansion of healthcare […]

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

HBD Fundamentals - A bibliography referencing key papers and other publications which serve as the basic evidence for human biodiversity, in an easy-to-follow form.

American Nations Series – A page indexing my posts on the American Nations, the regional differences across North America that fuel political and cultural tensions.

Obesity Facts – List keys facts on obesity, such as its high heritability, and addresses important misconceptions, such as the ineffectiveness of diet and exercise in treating it and its greatly overstated health impact

List of key blogs:

West Hunter Blog of physicist Greg Cochran and anthropologist Henry Harpending, authors of the seminal book “The 10,000 Year Explosion”

Nassim Taleb is full of shyte , Most of the islamic scholars were actually of Arab descent :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-modern_Arab_scientists_and_scholars
Alhazen , Alkindi , Averroes were all arabs so screw yourself zionist trash